2. Why are rational ignorance and rational irrationality more prevalent in political than in market decision-making? Given their prevalence in politics, what implications do you think this has for how political institutions should be designed or the frequency and number of elections in a democratic society? Rational ignorance occurs when it is in the best interest of rational people to stay uninformed. This occurs because information is costly to gather, process, and act on. These costs associated with becoming informed outweigh the benefits of the information. According to Huemer, rational irrationality occurs when it is “instrumentally rational to be epistemically irrational.” In other words, the cost of finding the truth often outweighs the benefit of forming true beliefs. In politics, …show more content…
Therefore, political institutions should be constructed to mitigate their effects. Huemer contends that we should try to understand political irrationality and adopt good practices such as identifying cases in which we are likely to be biased, collecting information from more than one side, and recognizing that other people may feed us bias information. However, it is unrealistic to expect voters or politicians to practice these behaviors on their own. I argue we should construct political institutions that do not allow for bias to disrupt the political system by using Buchanan’s generality principle. In a majoritarian political system, as the generality of policy decisions increases, the influence of irrational biases decreases. Thus, general interest is promoted above individual beliefs that are ignorant or unfounded. For example, Buchanan argues for uniform tax rates rather than a tax code with many exceptions. This way, individual beliefs about what conditions deserve more tax relief are not factored
For instance, Menand writes, “The fraction of the electorates that responds to substantive political argument is hugely outweighed by the fraction that responds to slogans, misinformation...random personal association.” Mass voters mostly pursue the wrong or irrelevant information that are irrelevant to the election; thus lead them to vote for the candidates which they do not really want. Their choices mostly lack rationalities. Many voters who are slightly informative think that they are participating in a certain issue and considering the value of the candidates; yet most of them do not have adequate information and knowledge in understanding the meaning of political terms. Voters lack judgment on their government and candidates, their minds are easily being brainwashed by a small amount of people who has informative approaches in participating governmental issue, and affect their
Double edge sword is what lies at the heart of Roach’s issue with the American political system. While the public’s trust for their elected officials continues to disintegrate because of backroom deals and a poor transparency, it is exactly what the American political system requires its participants to do in order to be effective deal makers and according Roach, “Campaign contributions and smoke-filled rooms, pork is a tool of democratic governance, not violation of it. It can be used for corrupt purposes but also, for vital ones.” Roach argues that the public must take the good with the bad, they do not have to like it or agree with it, but they must see the importance that each side plays. Roach believes that it has been within the past 40 years that publics growing mistrust for the American political system has pushed toward favoring disintermediation, populism, and self-expression over professionals and political insiders.
Probably one of the biggest economic debates is rationality. Whether a decision is rational or irrational. If I were to make a rational decision, it would most benefit me over all of the other choices I could have chosen from. This is how Professor Henry Spearman solves the case of the murder. All of the suspects are proven guilty or innocent based off of the decisions they make. If it is a rational decision, then the suspect is thought of as innocent. If it is an irrational decision, then the suspect is thought of as
He also explains that the public succumbs to the stereotypes that support the government: news, law enforcement, and politicians. Lippmann then points out that the “visible government” is the aftermath of the assumptions made by the public about democracy. Lippmann argues, “the substance of the argument is that democracy in its original form never seriously faced the problem which arises because the pictures inside people’s heads do not automatically correspond with the world outside” (Lippmann 19). This argument makes sense because the interpretation of symbols and fictions, as well as propaganda and stereotypes, differentiates person to person. As democracy has developed, the pictures inside people’s minds have pushed it from its original form. Concurrently, the people in power have the same distorted picture in their head. He continues this evaluation by saying, “for in each of these innumerable centers of authority there are parties, and these parties are themselves hierarchies with their roots in classes, sections, cliques and clans; and within these are the individual politicians, each the personal center of a web of connection and memory and fear and hope” (Lippmann 13). This places the public at risk because their leaders are acting with a pre-disposition to certain stereotypes and the effect trickles down to plague the
The underlying paradox of irrationality, from which no theory can entirely escape, is this: if we explain it too well, we turn it into a concealed form of rationality; while if we assign incoherence too glibly, we merely compromise our ability to diagnose irrationality by withdrawing the background of rationality needed to justify any diagnosis at all. (1)
In discussing the problems surrounding the issue of factionalism in American society, James Madison concluded in Federalist #10, "The inference to which we are brought is that the causes of cannot be removed and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects." (Federalist Papers 1999, 75) In many ways, the nature of American politics has revolved around this question since our country's birth. What is the relationship between parties and government? Should the party serve as an intermediary between the populace and government, and how should a government respond to disparate ideas espoused by the factions inherent to a free society. This paper will discuss the political evolution that has revolved around this question, examining different "regimes" and how they attempted to reconcile the relationship between power and the corresponding role of the people. Beginning with the Federalists themselves, we will trace this evolution until we reach the contemporary period, where we find a political climate described as "interest-group liberalism." Eventually this paper will seek to determine which has been the most beneficial, and which is ultimately preferable.
Capitalism as an economic system has not been around for a very long time. Stanford indicates that this economic system began in the mid-1700s in Europe . For a considerably young system, it almost seems impossible to imagine a different way of living. Capitalism has become deeply embedded in our social structures; it is naturalized as a way of doing day to day things. If this is the case, then we as humans have a long way to go if we are to achieve social and economic justice. The question I aim to explore is whether capitalism is capable of achieving socio-economic justice. I am arguing that it cannot achieve justice because there is too much focus on profit rather than people and it dislocates the consumers from the modes of production which indirectly promotes social inequality. Our current economic system which I will be interchangeably using as capitalism throughout the paper will examine why the focus on profit is detrimental to the social well-being of people and explain how capitalism is divisive and why this can pose negative outcomes for individuals and communities. It is with these arguments that outline the need for a fundamental change to how our economy is structured and managed.
The second example of when this case study involves the rational choice perspective is when Danny lied to Laura about having the job at GM. Danny used his rational thinking that if he told Laura he had a good job, that she would stay with Danny. Danny was desperate at this point and attempted to make Laura and the children stay. In his mind, he had to lie in order to gain his reward. He believed that the benefit of him saying he had a job would make his marriage
During the second half of the past century the notion that, political science should be treated as a science became extremely popular among academics specially in the United States. One of the most prominent exposers of this school of thought was Anthony Downs, who developed a theorem to explain in a rather economic sense, how and why voters behave in a certain way when it comes to voting. Downs did not only applied his theory to the way voters behave, he also used it to explain the way political parties align themselves when it comes to elections in a two and a multiparty system nevertheless this essay will analyze Downs’ claims about a two party system only. This essay argues that the Downs’ model has proven to be accurate in many cases throughout history, nevertheless it makes a series of assumptions about voters and parties that can not be considered realistic neither in 1957, when he published his paper An Economic Theory of Political Action in Democracy in 1957 nor in 2013. This essay also acknowledges that fact that this theory might help to explain how parties behave but it is by no means the only explanation. Furthermore this essay will prove that it is a multiplicity of factors rather than an economic theory what can help us understand why parties behave the way they do. In order to support the argument previously stated this essay will state and critically analyze a number of Downs assumptions, then his theory will be outlined. Then it will carefully consider how effective it has been at predicting the way in which parties align themselves by examining the behavior of political parties during general elections in different countries.
On the spectrum of politics (or any other ideologically-based matter), personal opinions will inevitably vary from one extreme on the left to the opposite on the right. In a governing system such as that of the United States, where the population directly elects representatives to govern, the position a candidate holds on the spectrum pertaining to certain issues in relation to other candidates becomes increasingly important. Theoretically, two people coming from different backgrounds and different political parties should provide contrasting opinions on major issues, allowing an individual voter to clearly and easily see the difference between his options and choose which option would be best for himself and his country. According to the Median Value Theorem, however, in most cases, the candidate's personal views and priorities cannot be considered if a victorious election is the ultimate goal, leading to nearly identical candidates at the time of election. Although this theory contains flaws, both theoretically in the actual workings and ideologically in the results, it is still valid and important to today's political strategies.
Rationalism derives from the idea that accepts the supremacy of reason, as opposed to blind faith, and aims at establishing a system of philosophy, values, and ethics that are verifiable by experience, independent of all arbitrary assumptions or authority. The principle doctrine of rationalism holds that the source of knowledge is reason and logic. Thus, rationalism is contrasted with the idea that faith, revelation and religion are also valid sources of knowledge and verification. Rationalists, in this context, prioritize the use of reason and consider reason as being crucial in investigating and understanding the world, and they reject religion on the grounds that it is unreasonable. Rationalism is in contradistinction to fideism;
A policy is devised by politicians who have certain belifs on how a society must be governed. Politicians with similar belifs come toge...
"Rational - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary." Merriam-Webster Online. Web. 29 Oct. 2010. .
Believing that reason is the main source of knowledge is another clear distinction of rationalism. Rationalists believe that the 5 senses only give you opinions, not reasons. For example, in Descartes’ wax argument, he explains how a candle has one shape to begin with- but once the candle is lit, it begins to melt, lose its fragrance, and take on a completely different shape than it had started with. This argument proves that our senses can be deceiving and that they should not be trusted.
Rational decision making is one of the most common problem solving methods and can be used to solve almost all problems. Rational decision making and problem solving processes can be explained in a logical manner. Effective leaders use rational decision making processes to identify the problem, think up solutions, evaluate alternatives along with select a solution, implement and evaluate the final solution. In rational decision making leaders analyze the problem to achieve the most efficient choice through different possible alternatives from different scenarios before making a selection.